Scribd
Upload
174 views2 pages

Lifeport Sciences LLC v. Endologix, Inc., C.A. No. 12-1791-GMS (D. Del. Jul. 29, 2015)

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted the defendant's motion for leave to amend its answer in a civil action between Lifeport Sciences LLC and Endologix, Inc. The court's scheduling order explicitly set a deadline of June 8, 2015 for motions to amend pleadings to include allegations of inequitable conduct. As the defendant filed its motion on this deadline, the court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the amendment should be denied due to undue delay or prejudice.

Uploaded by

YCSTBlog
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
174 views2 pages

Lifeport Sciences LLC v. Endologix, Inc., C.A. No. 12-1791-GMS (D. Del. Jul. 29, 2015)

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted the defendant's motion for leave to amend its answer in a civil action between Lifeport Sciences LLC and Endologix, Inc. The court's scheduling order explicitly set a deadline of June 8, 2015 for motions to amend pleadings to include allegations of inequitable conduct. As the defendant filed its motion on this deadline, the court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the amendment should be denied due to undue delay or prejudice.

Uploaded by

YCSTBlog
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE


)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

LIFEPORT SCIENCES LLC,


Plaintiff,
V.

ENDOLOGIX, INC.,
Defendant.

At Wilmington, this

11

c.~day

Civil Action No. 12-1791-GMS

ORDER

of July 2015, the court having reviewed the parties'

submissions and the applicable law;


IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend Its Answer
(D.1. 72) is GRANTED.
The court is to "freely give leave" to parties to amend their pleadings "when justice so
requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). "Leave to amend must generally be granted unless equitable
considerations render it otherwise unjust. Among the factors that may justify denial of leave to
amend are undue delay, bad faith, and futility." Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196, 204 (3d
Cir. 2006).
The defendant seeks to amend its answer to include allegations that the asserted patents
are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

(D.I. 72, Ex. 1.) The plaintiff opposes the

amendment on the grounds that the defendant unduly delayed in filing the motion. The plaintiff
also contends that it would prejudiced if the court were to allow the amendment at this stage of
litigation.

The court rejects both of the plaintiffs arguments for the same reason: the parties
specifically built into their scheduling order a deadline for this exact purpose: "For motions to
amend the pleadings to allege inequitable conduct, whether by affirmative defense or in a
counterclaim, all such motions shall be filed on or before June 8, 2015."

(D.I. 24.)

The

defendant indeed filed its motion on June 8, 2015. Even assuming the plaintiff is correct that the
defendant could have filed it motion sooner, the court cannot say the delay was undue or that the
plaintiff will be prejudiced when this was explicitly contemplated as a possibility. Following the
guidance of Rule 15, the court gives the defendant leave to amend.

You might also like